The growing ranks of GOP critics of warrantless searches

Before this week’s Judiciary Committee hearing exploring Bush’s warrantless-search program, there were at least seven Senate Republicans who had expressed concerns about the program’s legality. During the hearing, the number seemed to expand to eight, with Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) expressing reservations.

Now, a key House Republican is also breaking ranks.

A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had “serious concerns” about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Ms. Wilson, who was a National Security Council aide in the administration of President Bush’s father, is the first Republican on either the House’s Intelligence Committee or the Senate’s to call for a full Congressional investigation into the program, in which the N.S.A. has been eavesdropping without warrants on the international communications of people inside the United States believed to have links with terrorists.

Like Kevin, I think this is an issue that’s becoming a wedge for the GOP, dividing principled conservatives who are concerned about the abuse of sweeping government power vs. ideologues who believe it’s more important to protect Bush’s political standing than the rule of law.

Of course, when it comes to Heather Wilson, protecting her political future may be the most important consideration of all.

Wilson represents a very competitive district near Albuquerque, and this year she’ll face a very popular state Attorney General, Patricia Madrid (D). Indeed, the same day Wilson announced that she found the administration’s approach to be “increasingly untenable,” the Madrid campaign released a poll showing the two practically tied — Wilson 44%, Madrid 43%.

Regardless of Wilson’s motivations, her criticism is a big deal. As the chorus of GOP critics grows, it gets harder and harder for the administration to characterize this controversy as a partisan fight. It also undermines the White House drive to dismiss critics as national security weaklings with a pre-9/11 worldview.

Wilson, in particular, is a former Air Force officer and the only female veteran currently in Congress — and she shows no sign of backing down.

“The president has his duty to do, but I have mine too, and I feel strongly about that,” she said.

After Rove’s reported ultimatum to Republicans to support Bush or else, I was wondering how long it would be before Republicans in tough races started running for the hawsers. The answer is “not long”.

How long before this becomes a stampede?

  • As I said yesterday, Is supporting Bush better or worse for a Republican’s 2006 campaign? It’s not taking Karl Rove long to find out.

  • Look behind Wilson’s move. On the surface, it would seem a bold move. On the other hand, Hoekstra is Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and he says no way in Hell will there be any Hearings on the domestic spying “thing.” So, Wilson gets to talk tough… to impress her constituents… without worrying that anything will actually come from her tough-talk, or that she will have to walk the walk.

    Sort of like Lieberman and Chafee voting “no” on Alito’s confirmation, when the outcome was already assured since they had previously voted “yes” on the cloture vote to end the debate in the Senate. Tough talk is easy when one has no fear of actually having to back it up. Just like the 101st Fighting Keyboardists of the wrong-wing blogosphere…

  • I agree with Analytical, she talked tough on torture then voted for it. I also agree with JC, when is this going to go from a debate or seeing how we “work” with the preznit to change the law. First they have already broke the law according to several authorities on this subject and to just diminish the fact or overlook this and say it’s ok “we’ll” just fix it so now it will be legal and ignoring the actual offense is wrong, just plain wrong. It’s like saying you held up the bank on friday but we change the law on tuesday so now you can’t be charged with bank robbery.

    BEWARE of the WOLF in SHEEP’S clothing, BEWARE

  • Comments are closed.